I think there is more agreement about basic income between many people who have discussed it extensively than the article lets on. For example:

Immigrants? The aged? Children? Prisoners? Ex-convicts?

The treatment of all of these groups under Basic Income can be aligned with their treatment under welfare, at least at first, with little (or, I guess, less) political upset. In the US,

Immigrants: not at first, but yes, after 5 years of paying taxes, like under current welfare. The aged: yes, Prisoners: no (because they're currently being housed by the state anyway) Ex-convicts: yes (they certainly need funds to begin their life outside of prison) Children: a partial basic income given to each parent per child (this is the most contentiously debated group, for the same arguments as current welfare)

Moreover, the overhead costs of the main programs noted below are low, for the most part.

This is a valid point, but

In the current system, there is plenty to criticize. Eligibility could be simplified and broadened. Assistance could be increased

this is a real criticism too. More on increased assistance later.

Some on the right would like to replace existing programs because they disapprove of what those programs do, not because they fail to erase poverty...Or they imagine a scenario where Federal spending decreases, and the remaining UBI programs can then be further whittled down over time

I don't believe this would happen, even if they think it will, and I'll get to why.

The author concludes with a list of reasons why current social assistance is convoluted

No surprise, poor people don’t have much political power. They are obliged to seek alliances with provider interests...associated interest groups encourages fragmentation

etc., but then defends them by saying that they

actually work, [and stand] better than a ghost of a chance at being enacted

without mentioning that they are exactly the reason Basic Income would produce the political incentives to be self-sustaining, unlike welfare. Namely, that it is more uniform and universal.

--

The singularly most untouchable government programs are Social Security and Medicare. Even the military budget in the US is going to see future cuts, but not these two. Why? It unites a large swath of the population with consistent and beneficial treatment. For this reason, it is political suicide for politicians to make austerity-type cuts into these programs. Universal Basic Income would do the same, except for all social assistance programs, and in uniting an even wider range of people (every adult citizen), make its political future even more, not less, resistant to dismantling.

The biggest reason for a universal basic income is that jobs are becoming less and less as technology improves. It is impossible to expect people to work to afford basic food needs because the jobs are not available. Today around 40% of working age people do not work. There's also the issue of so many low paying jobs. People that makes less than $12/hr for example will have a significantly improved quality of life for $3k a month. We would also have less reason to have these menial jobs available that could easily be replaced by automated systems, like cashiers for example.

A universal income of $3k would be sufficient and almost eliminate poverty. That's only $250 mo, but enough to make sure people don't starve. It's $1 trillion a year. In comparison we spend $6 trillion on our military a year atm.

Give it to everyone except for illegals that do not pay taxes.